Merged A Thread for AlexPontik to Explain his Ideas

[Tippit]

The confused icon is appropriate in this case because the government doesn't back anything. Fiat currency is backed by the future earnings of taxpayers.

As a matter of practice, the government doesn't print money at all. It prints and sells bonds. Base money only gets printed if the central bank decides to buy any of these bonds.

That is simply not true. Have you been living under a rock for the last two decades? The Federal Reserve is monetizing virtually everything under the sun. Three percent of its balance sheet consists of corporate junk bonds. It's balance sheet has grown roughly 75% from 4 to 7 trillion dollars in record time. There is indeed a lot of confusion on this thread, but not from me.

 

[Tippit]

No. It is backed by the government issuing the currency. Are you really saying you didn't even know that?

I can see why you're confused. "Backed by the government issuing the currency" is utterly meaningless. The important question, is what prevents the issuers of money from increasing the supply almost infinitely and in perpetuity, because according to the supply/demand model, that affects the value, which is all that we are concerned with. And the answer to that question, is absolutely nothing.

I pay tax on my dividends according to the government's progressive income tax or progressive capital gains tax percentiles. You didn't even know that?

In the US, capital gains rates are lower than earned income rates. I never asked what you pay, as that doesn't concern me.

So why do all these same countries have progressive tax scales? You seem very confused

capital gains tax covers years, not one year. Didn't you know?

You keep repeating the idea that I'm confused, but nothing you've said is relevant to anything that I've posted above.

You're just funny. If the largest producers of gold are China, Australia and Russia, then they can increase production to the USA's detriment.

That China, Australia and Russia owns and controls production levels? Are you kidding me?

If increasing the supply of money is indeed a detriment, which you seem to be implying, then what is the detriment of a fiat money system for which the elites can issue unlimited costless money for their own benefit? The US is also the fourth largest gold producer on your list, but that's irrelevant for a number of reasons, not the least of which being that the price of gold is dictated by the supply of and demand for pre-existing, above ground gold.

 

[Tippit]

I'm assuming you are a Ron Paul subscriber. Ron Paul is very good at taking money off his subscribers......and Don Black from Stormfront.... and David Duke.... and anyone else he can sell his crap economic BS to.....

You made an incorrect assumption. Are you trying to paint me, and anyone aware of the fiat money scam as racists?

 

[Tippit]

Yes. The government sells government bonds.

However I'm more interested in Tippit's economic transition equation or linear logic that allows a return to the gold standard, when China, Australia and Russia produce more gold than the USA.

I never said anything about a return to the gold standard. That is you making up a lie about what you think I meant, versus actually reading what I posted in this thread. I'm concerned with elites vastly enriching share and bondholders by central bank policy, to the detriment of workers and savers everywhere, and then the resulting social discord being blamed incorrectly on "systemic racism".

 

[Leftus]

Wrong. Fun is an emotional experience. Animals are driven more by it than humans. They do what they like doing and avoid what they don't, even if in the long run doing 'not-fun' stuff would be more beneficial to them. To a dolphin, fun is the essential driver of its behavior.

I'm by no means an expert in Dolphins, not even the NFL ones, but I *think* I've seen them having fun, racing along side a boat, in the wake, has to be fun. Probably more fun than being a Miami Dolphin.

I can say, without hesitation that when my dog and I engage in his two favorite games, tug and "you gimmie that" (where he runs past me with a toy, taunting me to catch him) we are both having fun.

So, yes, fun does exist in the animal world. Domesticated and non-domesticated alike.

 

[Leftus]

AlexPontik first appeared on essay writing forum talking about "fun". Somehow he thinks he has discovered some deep insight into economics and wants to tell the world.

I've got no truck with that idea. And I'm trying to hold back some of my criticism as I think English might not be his first language, but if you are going to express your ideas in that language, having some understanding of that art would go a long way.

Maybe he has some compelling arguments about how leisure time controls economic activity. We will never know until he uncouples his radical definitions for words that already have a functioning definition.

 

[Leftus]

I can measure and construct a demand curve with ease. As price increases demand reduces with empirical measurements.

Tell me how you construct you BS "fun" curve?

You can't can you? It is total BS with no use in mathematically calculating and predicting economic behaviour.

The fun curve looks exactly like a water slide. Or a roller coaster.

 

[Lothian]

I love the threads about goats.

 

[bruto]

I'm convinced. I've started a new theory of otter-slide economics.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

The fun curve looks exactly like a water slide. Or a roller coaster.

And would a great place for otters to play.

Otters "Just want to Have FUN"!

Otters -- the most playful creatures in the World. (Though their whole economy is based on shellfish)

 

[Matthew Ellard]

In the US, capital gains rates are lower than earned income rates. I never asked what you pay, as that doesn't concern me.

Capital gains tax covers many years and thus is lower that annual income tax (unless under a CPI indexation regime).. You didn't even understand that basic concept?


Yep you are another BS artist pretending you understand economics. It is progressive income tax that eliminates the wealth gap. Your crap claim that fiat currency somehow magically increases the wealth gap was just that.....crap. Reducing the wealth gap is a political choice at the polling booth.

 

[Leftus]

And would a great place for otters to play.

Otters "Just want to Have FUN"!

Otters -- the most playful creatures in the World. (Though their whole economy is based on shellfish)

I'm sold!

 

[Tippit]

Capital gains tax covers many years and thus is lower that annual income tax (unless under a CPI indexation regime).. You didn't even understand that basic concept?

You're very insulting, yet it is you that doesn't seem to understand basic arithmetic, and how it would apply to the progressivity or regressivity of capital gains rates. First of all, a capital gain can be incurred in seconds, not years. The fact that unrealized capital gains continue to accrue to the owner of a security without being taxed annually, and thus enables them to enjoy the compounded returns associated with stocks, amounts to a form of deferred taxation. This, plus the facts that capital gains are passive, the profit is unearned, and investors are subsidized by unlimited fiat money from central banks propping up capital markets means that they should be taxed at a *higher* not lower rate than the earned income of people who work for a living.

Yep you are another BS artist pretending you understand economics. It is progressive income tax that eliminates the wealth gap. Your crap claim that fiat currency somehow magically increases the wealth gap was just that.....crap. Reducing the wealth gap is a political choice at the polling booth.

You apparently don't understand the difference between income and wealth, or flows and stocks. You are the pretender. The level of ignorance required to assume that progressive income taxes could "eliminate the wealth gap" is astoundingly high. Income taxes tax income, not wealth.

Fiat currency increases the wealth gap because it amounts to a perpetual subsidy of capital markets by central banks, debasing the currencies that workers work for, and savers save. Investors deserve only the discounted present value of future cash flows, not insanely high stock and bond market valuations that are seen currently, thanks to the largess of central banks who are sponsoring the super-rich.

The fact that you can't grasp this "basic concept" is evidence that you are willfully ignorant, and morally deficient.

 

[bruto]

I'm sold!

Otterly!

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Fiat currency increases the wealth gap because it amounts to a perpetual subsidy of capital markets by central banks, debasing the currencies that workers work for, and savers save. Investors deserve only the discounted present value of future cash flows, not insanely high stock and bond market valuations that are seen currently, thanks to the largess of central banks who are sponsoring the super-rich.

What a load of nonsense. Anybody can buy stock and bonds, and so take advantage of the 'insanely high valuations' you speak of.

The wealth gap is a natural result of 'free market' economics - you think there were no wealth gaps before fiat currency? History proves you wrong.

 

[AlexPontik]

"Have to" what?

Whatever people want to have for fun.

Are you claiming that "have not" is an antonym for "have to"?

Are you claiming you didn't understand what I meant?
If yes, please explain what is it exactly you don't understand, but keep it within the conversation.What is the conversation? I am trying to understand what is it that you don't understand.
If you did understand, then clearly this isn't what I meant, is it?

 

[AlexPontik]

Once again, I'm not addressing the morality of the situation. I'm asking you how this reality of people not paying taxes yet still getting something from that taxing agency fits into your tit-for tat explanation of taxation

I am not sure I understand you, if taxes violate once morality and one has a way out taxes, one doesn't pay taxes.
In order for one to be willing to be paying taxes (and not be in constant revolt against the state), taxes should be within ones morality.
Could you explain yourself a bit?

I'm going to go with "not even wrong" on trying to convert this nonsense into plain English.

Here is the scary part, my job is to take parts of the tax code and translate them into rules that normal people can understand. Well, normal in the sense they are programmers. So I'm used to, and dare I say a bit skilled, in taking something complex and putting it into plain English. Also, it's not that "fun" Pay is decent, let's me work at home, but it's not something I would do without the pay, ergo, not fun.

If you already thing you are skilled at explain something into rules that normal people can understand, you will need to explain yourself this way.
"I'm going to go with "not even wrong" on trying to convert this nonsense into plain English" is something even an unskilled person in language can do, so that doesn't differentiate you here.

No such land exists. Every scrap of dust is under state and federal laws, in the US. I could probably go to some place in North Africa and become a warlord, but that only adds to my problems. Somalia is still probably lawless enough to opt out, but then I'd be in Somalia, which is a problem.

This is why humans stay within organised society, because it minimizes their problems.
Unfortunately, since some humans will have unreasonable expectations from life, they still complain, about not having any other better option.
So you can have other humans try to help you with your problems and have responsibility towards them in a society(some of which can be enforced, and some of which would be nice of you - and even more useful for society), or you can move towards more individual freedom environments.
Why am I saying this? Nature doesn't seem to be restricting you more than you want or is good for you in the end, or do you think otherwise?

No, you are being, at this point I'm going with intentionally obtuse. And, dare I say, abusing the word fun. I can't speak to you missing the point you are trying to make, because the point you are trying to make is on the "not even wrong" border.

If you are in the "not even wrong" part of your judgement, regarding this thread, wouldn't it be nice of you to let someone else write here?
Why are you spending the time and effort to write here, if you can't argue with someone?
Someone else may write something which is useful for me to read, and then I can correct my thinking, you seem to be writing that I should think differently than what wrote.
Ok, but past this argument, there isn't much to get from you, and this is pointless for both of us (unless you are just here to pick up fights)

 

[AlexPontik]

Wrong. Fun is an emotional experience. Animals are driven more by it than humans. They do what they like doing and avoid what they don't, even if in the long run doing 'not-fun' stuff would be more beneficial to them. To a dolphin, fun is the essential driver of its behavior.

The human idea of fun is the same, but unlike animals we don't need the instant gratification of something being 'fun' to motivate us. Much of what we do is not fun, but we know that doing it will eventually make our lives better, eg. growing crops or manufacturing products for future use.

Animals don't need instant gratification of something being 'fun' to motivate them, something can be 'not fun' for them, and motivate them (as it is for us).
For animals, as for humans something can be funny or not funny.
What in particular depends on the particular animal species, and on the particular occasion.

A tautology is not just a truth that everyone knows, it defines itself - which makes it worthless for analysis. You are saying that what is fun is fun, which tells us nothing about what is fun and what isn't, like saying 1 = 1.

I am saying exactly that, and the practicality of "fun is fun" is that for humans it is hard to convince humans that something not fun for them is fun to them, but it is possible to convince them that something they think is not fun, but haven't experienced, may be fun, if they gave it a shot.
If you want to have a fun life with other people, better do what is fun for all in the group together, and what is fun for each individually alone.

But people don't only do what is fun for them - in fact most of the time they don't. In modern economies we work at jobs we often don't enjoy in order to earn enough credit to purchase the things we need to survive. If we are lucky we get enough to have some fun too.

Any economic theory that relies on having fun as a motivator is bound to fail, because that isn't what mostly drives us.

you need to survive to have fun, but surviving doesn't mean you have fun, you still need to have fun to have fun.
And this phrase means that you will know it when you are having fun.

Now, regarding "fun isn't what mostly drives us", if that is so then what mostly drives us is not fun, in which case you have humans trying to convince you should live a life mostly without having fun...now that isn't very sensible is it ?
How is that? In the same way that being irresponsible isn't that sensible also.
And someone who is trying to say that in their lives they are not trying to have fun, they usually aren't that honest.

Nonsense. I have more fun than most people, but even I have to work occasionally to pay the bills. Due to Covid-19 my regular job was put on hold so I had to take what I could get. The job I got was very boring and physically demanding, but paid well. After 2 weeks I started suffering from RSI, but stuck to it because I needed the money. That job is finished now so I am recovering (and having fun!) until the money runs out - when I will probably have to do more not-fun stuff.

So I had to endure pain for a considerable time, and I had to be patient. If I had only been motivated by fun and tried to avoid pain, I would not have stuck to the job and not earned the money that allows me to have fun now.

Let's simply say you don't have more fun than most people...why?
Because you don't know how other people's lives feel to them, this is why.
Perhaps you have more, perhaps you have less, if you think you know that and fun isn't what mostly motivates you, as you wrote above, you need to guide me another way to your way of thinking.

Too expensive = too expensive? A worthless tautology.

"Something is "too expensive" for one when one decides that it is too expensive for him/her, for whatever specific reasoning they have for the specific occasion.
"
is what I wrote, but sorry this is what too expensive means, if you wanted it to mean something else to be useful to you ("too expensive for others"="not expensive for me"), this isn't what seems to be happening.

So you are saying that the economy would improve if people only did what was fun for them? That is what happens in hunter-gatherer societies. They have a lot of fun, but their economies are poor. There is no way the planet can support 8 billion hunter-gatherers. If we went back to that then billions of people would die, the very opposite of having fun!

I am saying that the economy would balance if people only did what is fun for them (not "was"), if people did less or more than what is fun for them constantly, then society wouldn't be fun this is what I am saying, together with the observation that keeping things funny, requires behaving.
For the ones who behave, they are fun for the rest people, for the ones who don't, they are not.

 

[Startz]

...snip
Someone else may write something which is useful for me to read, and then I can correct my thinking

Perhaps this will be useful...People have been studying the topics you are discussing for a very long time, and have developed a somewhat standard terminology for such discussions. Discussions are more fruitful when no one is inventing new words which folks then need to understand. (Also, people who want to use their own nonstandard words start to sound like trolls--even when that's not at all the case.)

So...as others have suggested...this might all be more clear if you would use standard terms. For example, by "fun" do you mean the economics term "utility?"

 

[AlexPontik]

How on Earth can you claim maintaining the military is "Fun"?

Try to not maintain the military in this time of human history, and you will notice that things will become not fun (I assume you can imagine how).

Or is it something else you meant?